Talk:Javanese script/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 01:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

There are frequent unsourced statements, including a number of bold statements such as "It is still taught in most elementary school and some junior high school as compulsory subject in Javanese language areas" and "KBJ is also responsible for the registration of Javanese script into Unicode".
Some of the sources used don't look remotely reliable, particularly Joglosemar and Hanacaraka. There should be numerous scholarly, preferably printed, sources available on the Indonesian language and history, and of the history of alphabets or abugidas, that cover this.
About half of the references, reliable or otherwise, aren't formatted at all beyond a link with a title.
A number of the references that are formatted are incompletely or incorrectly so, lacking things like accessdates, dates, and proper use of italics.
The article isn't very visually appealing; there are a few short paragraphs that could be merged as well as some tables that are excessively large, leave too much whitespace around them, or otherwise break up the flow of the text.
The Characteristics section seems redundant, as its information is largely replicated later on.
Galleries are generally discouraged on Wikipedia, and the one here doesn't correspond to the circumstaces under which WP:GALLERY thinks they're okay, as the images aren't in thumbnails and don't have captions. There are also too many of them and some seem redundant.

This is all without going through the prose much. I didn't notice anything glaring, and I appreciate the work you've done on the article, but I can't pass it or even put it on hold with all of these other issues. For the time being, I'd recommend undergoing thorough research on the alphabet from scholarly sources and looking at language-related GAs and FAs. Tezero (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]